Intergenerational Legacies of the Genocide in Rwanda and Community Based Sociotherapy

Identifying and Addressing Pathways of Transmission

April 2017

By Veroni Eichelsheim, Lidewyde Berckmoes, Theoneste Rutayisire,

Annemiek Richters and Barbora Hola

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and

Community Based Sociotherapy Program (CBSP), Kigali, Rwanda

Funded by NWO-WOTRO, Applied Research Fund of the Security & Rule of Law programme (grant number W

08.400.124 /779)

Executive Summary

This policy paper reports results of research conducted by the Netherlands Institute for the Study of

Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) and the Community Based Sociotherapy Program (CBSP), funded

by NWO-WOTRO, Applied Research Fund of the Security and Rule of Law program. The research aimed

to: (i) understand how legacies of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, its aftermath and related

experiences are transmitted to the next generation of Rwandans through processes within families;

and (ii) identify whether and how sociotherapy can play a role in addressing such pathways of

intergenerational transmission. Previous research has demonstrated long-lasting and

intergenerational effects of mass violence on individuals, families and communities. In Rwanda, the

1994 genocide and its aftermath led to large-scale individual traumatization, disruption of family

structures, shifts in gender roles, increase in familial violence, and continuing tensions within

communities. In the aftermath of the genocide, sociotherapy has been implemented in Rwanda to

contribute to improving psychosocial wellbeing of individuals, enabling interpersonal reconciliation

and strengthening social cohesion.

Findings showed direct and indirect pathways by which legacies of the genocide and its aftermath are

transmitted to the second generation within families. The direct pathways of intergenerational

transmission concern the ways in which the genocide (and other acts of violence), its aftermath (e.g.

Gacaca, imprisonment) and related events (e.g. displacement, exile) are reflected upon, reconstructed

and explicitly communicated or silenced to children. The indirect pathways of intergenerational

transmission are the ways in which the genocide and its aftermath affect the second generation’s

socio-ecological environment, and through that, the socialization environment of the child. Examples

include the effects on (i) family structures (e.g. missing family members due to death or imprisonment);

(ii) family functioning and parenting (e.g. suffering of parents makes parents less sensitive to the needs

of their children); (iii) family socio-economic situation and status (e.g. poverty); and (iv) community

relationships (e.g. processes of stigmatization and shame or feelings of jealousy and inequality or

mistrust within communities). The pathways are all interrelated and interact in various ways.

Findings also showed that sociotherapy has the potential to address both direct and indirect pathways

of intergenerational transmission through its intervention. We exemplify direct communication as a

direct pathway and poverty as an indirect pathway of intergenerational transmission. Firstly, CBSP

facilitates direct communication about past or current suffering in the sociotherapy group sessions.

Communication seems to serve as a therapeutic tool for sharing among participants, but is not (yet)

addressed as a direct pathway of intergenerational transmission of legacies of the genocide within

families. Secondly, poverty and other indirect pathways of intergenerational transmission of legacies

of the genocide may be more explicitly targeted. Through the sociotherapy sessions, CBSP facilitates

group-based cooperation. Consequently, a number of its (former) participants have taken the initiative

to start collaborative economic activities, to help them in their struggles to improve their living

conditions.

In brief, in order to prevent negative consequences of the 1994 genocide on the second generation, it

is recommended that CBSP exploits possibilities to address direct and indirect pathways of

transmission more purposefully. To further develop practice-oriented strategies, future research

should investigate most effective tools. In addition, the positive and negative effects of direct

communication about the genocide or a lack thereof on the second generation requires further

investigation.

Acknowledgements This research was performed as a close collaboration between the NSCR and CBSP (a consortium of

Prison Fellowship Rwanda (PFR), EAR Byumba and Duhumurizanye Iwacu Rwanda). First of all, we would

like to thank all respondents for their willingness to share their time and impressive stories with us.

We would also like to thank CBSP, and in particular Bishop Gashagaza Deo as executive director of PFR,

for their support and willingness to cooperate in this project. We thank our team of field researchers,

Theophile Sewimfura, Jeanine Nyinawabega, Veronique Mukakayange, Jeannette Kangabe and

Augustin Musafiri for collecting the data and transcribing the interviews. We would also like to thank

Juvenal Rubegwa for translating the interviews from Kinyarwanda to English. Furthermore, we are

grateful to the CBSP team in the Kigali office and their local counterparts, who have made time to show

the Netherlands-based team around and engage in fruitful discussions during their visit to Rwanda.

Background Previous research has demonstrated long-lasting and intergenerational effects of mass violence on

individuals, families and communities. In Rwanda, the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi and post 1994

justice related experiences, such as those related to the Gacaca community courts and imprisonment

of mainly male genocide suspects or convicts, led to large-scale individual and collective

traumatization, disruption of family structures and shifts in gender roles. Furthermore, the aftermath

of the genocide has been related to elevated rates of domestic violence (Rieder & Elbert, 2013) and

ongoing struggles among survivors, perpetrators and their family members to cohabit in communities

(Buckley-Zistel, 2006).

To address some of these challenges, the Community Based Sociotherapy Program (CBSP) has been

implemented in Rwanda. CBSP aims to improve psychosocial wellbeing of individuals and strengthen

interpersonal reconciliation and social cohesion at the community level. It is designed as an alternative

to individually focused (and thus expensive) trauma therapy (Dekker, 2016). It uses the group setting

as a therapeutic medium for establishing trust, opening space for discussion and establishing peer-

support structures (see below for more information; Richters & Sarabwe, 2014).

This policy paper reports on findings from a research project that aimed to understand, firstly, the

intergenerational legacies of the genocide among Rwandan families, and second, the potential effects

of sociotherapy implemented in Rwanda by CBSP on the process of intergenerational transmission of

the genocidal legacies. The focus was on the pathways through which legacies of traumatic experiences

of the 1994 genocide and its aftermath are passed on to the second generation within families in

Rwanda. Special attention was given to the relation and interaction between mothers and their

children.

The research project was conducted by the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law

Enforcement (NSCR) and CBSP, and funded by NWO-WOTRO, Applied Research Fund of the Security

and Rule of Law program.

Intergenerational transmission in Rwanda Previous research offers evidence for the intergenerational transmission of violence, trauma and other

mental health problems in post-conflict environments (see for example: Weingarten, 2004; Saile et al.,

2014; Betancourt et al., 2015; Roth, Neuner & Elbert, 2014; Betancourt & Williams, 2008). Research

also shows that parenting behaviors affect the intergenerational transmission of trauma and violence,

either as risk or protective factors (Berckmoes & Reis, 2016; Gewirtz et al., 2008). For instance, due to

parents’ traumatic experiences, parents may become less sensitive to children’s needs or less available

to their children, which can subsequently affect developmental outcomes, such as children’s well-

being, educational achievements and social behavior (Berckmoes & Reis, 2016; Gewirtz et al., 2008;

Roth, Neuner, & Elbert, 2014). In addition, besides parental traumatic experiences, there are

indications that multiple other ecological factors at family and societal levels shape developmental

outcomes of children growing up in post-conflict settings, including changes in family structure, such

as loss of caregivers, poverty and other daily life struggles (Betancourt et al., 2015).

In Rwanda, after recurrent outbreaks of mass violence since 1959, the 1994 genocide and its aftermath

led to drastic changes in family and societal structures. Of a total population of over 7 million, it is

estimated that over 1 million people were killed (Rwanda, Ministry of Local Government, 2002).

Roughly, 56 percent of them were men (Ibid). Many women survived as captives, often subjected to

extreme violence, and consequently, continue to struggle with their physical, mental and social

wellbeing (e.g. Neugebauer et al., 2009). Tens of thousands of individuals fled to neighboring countries

and/or were (often upon their return from exile) detained, tried and imprisoned on genocide related

charges by normal criminal and Gacaca community courts (Clark & Kaufman, 2008). As such, the sex

ratio and traditional gender roles in Rwandan society have been significantly modified (Rutayisire &

Richters, 2014). Women had to step into the void left by men and attend to roles traditionally occupied

by men (Schindler, 2010). Also, many women had to provide for their husbands who were and

sometimes still are detained, often in poor conditions (Tertsakian, 2004). Furthermore, evidence

seems to suggest that increased marital conflict and intimate partner violence can partly be attributed

to genocide- and Gacaca-related factors (Rutayisire & Richters, 2014; Umubyeyi et al., 2014; Sarabwe,

Richters, & Vysma, 2017).

In this context, a deep concern exists over the potential intergenerational transmission of the legacies

of the/ negative consequences of the 1994 genocide and its aftermath - from those who have

experienced the genocide directly to those who have not directly experienced it (i.e. the children that

were not born yet in 1994). However, there is limited understanding of the mechanisms underlying

intergenerational transmission of experiences of mass violence and responses to it and how to best

address this phenomenon through policy and practice. In this research project we use qualitative

research to explore intergenerational legacies of mass violence in Rwanda, specifically the 1994

genocide and related events. We investigate how legacies of the genocide are being transferred from

one generation to the next within families, what role CBSP plays in addressing the intergenerational

transmission, and we identify possible avenues for improvement.

Community Based Sociotherapy Program in Rwanda Community based sociotherapy was initiated in Rwanda in 2005. To serve the massive psychosocial

needs among the Rwanda population in the aftermath of the war and genocide in the best possible

way, the clinic-based sociotherapy approach, as applied in psychiatric clinics in support of the

treatment of traumatized refugees in the Netherlands, was adapted to the Rwandan post-genocide

context and transformed in a community-based approach. Its objectives were to foster feelings of

dignity, safety and trust among the Rwandan population, reduce mental and social distress and reduce

disturbed and delayed development. Due to the positive effects of the approach within the

communities targeted by the intervention, in 2014 a three-year nation-wide sociotherapy program

was implemented to address in particular effects of the Gacaca (community justice) process that ran

from 2002-2012. The program in these three years was named Community Based Sociotherapy

Program in post-Gacaca Rwanda (CBSP). In these years CBSP further developed into a trauma informed

psychosocial peacebuilding program.

Sociotherapy in Rwanda is practiced in sociotherapy groups (socio-groups) of an average of ten to

fifteen people. The groups meet for approximately three hours a week, for a period of fifteen weeks.

The meetings are held in a place which is located in the direct living environment of group participants

which they consider as safe. Two trained sociotherapists methodologically guide the groups through

the sociotherapy phases of safety, trust, care, respect, new life orientations and memories.

Throughout the journey the following seven principles are applied: interest, equality, democracy,

participation, responsibility, here-and-now and learning-by-doing. The sociotherapy phases and

principles guide the group through a process of healing and social reconnection. The group members

are facilitated to share ideas, adapt one’s behavior, take care of each other. In consultation with each

other, they try to address their present problems and to support each other in processing painful

memories. It provides the participants with a new understanding of the issues affecting their feelings,

thoughts and behaviors, and enables them to think about the future again in constructive ways (see

for more information: www.sociotherapy.org).

Methodological approach To understand how children are affected by mass violence experienced by their parents and its

aftermath, we departed from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model on child development (1977). Our

focus was on processes of intergenerational transmission in the primary environment in which children

grow up, namely the household or the family. We were particularly interested in the relationship and

interactions between the mother and (one of) her child(ren), as representing respectively the first and

second generation. We approached the family environment as embedded within the community

environment, and influenced by the more distal, wider society. The sociotherapy program was

approached as part of the community environment, similar to mother’s participation in other potential

sources of institutional support such as church groups, community solidarity groups and relations with

neighbors.

The research included 41 households. As many households are female headed, as a result of male

imprisonment or death, we focused on mothers who experienced the genocide and their adolescent

children who had not consciously experienced any of the 1994 events. The participants in the study

were sampled through the sociotherapy program. We included a group of mothers who were going

through (or had already gone through) the program (N =22), and a group of mothers who had not (yet)

gone through it (N =19). Of the latter group, most women were on the program’s waiting list at the

time of the research. In both groups, mothers with different social and economic backgrounds were

included. To account for differences in socio-economic conditions and regional variation in genocidal

violence, post-genocide justice, and consequently variation in potential legacies of the genocide, the

research sites were geographically spread across Rwanda. We included seven districts in four Rwandan

provinces: North, South, East and West. We used qualitative research methods.

A team of five trained Rwandan researchers with relevant educational backgrounds (e.g. psychology,

sociology, social work) conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with mothers who had lived

through the genocide and with their adolescent children, who were born in or recently after 1994.

Mothers were interviewed twice. The first interview focused on the household circumstances and

negative and positive events experienced over the life course, including the genocide. The second

interview explored family relations, particularly with the child identified to be interviewed, and the

way the mother experienced and dealt with negative events, including the genocide. The interview

with the child explored how they experienced their household, the relationship with their mother, and

the influence of sociotherapy or other sources of support on their family life (cf. Berckmoes & Reis,

2016). All interviews were recorded, verbally transcribed and translated by a qualified Kinyarwanda-

English translator. The interviews were thematically analyzed by the first and second author, using

Atlas.ti to develop a coherent coding scheme. The coding scheme encompassed both the themes that,

based on the literature, had been identified in the research design phase and new themes that were

identified inductively.

Ethics Permission for this research project was granted by the Rwandan Ministry of Health and ethical

approval was obtained through the Rwanda National Ethics Committee (No.552/RNEC/2016).

Before the start of each interview, participants were informed about the research objectives and

process as well as their rights to participate both verbally and through an ‘informed consent’ form.

Furthermore, informants were explained that they could refrain from answering specific questions or

withdraw at any moment. Informed consent was obtained from both mothers and children. The

respondents were explained that the information obtained would be used for research purposes only

and that reporting would not contain information that could be traced back to individuals. We also

notified participants that we would transcribe, anonymize and securely save the interviews and audio

files, in line with data management guidelines of the NSCR.

Respondents were selected through CBSP and were either former participants or on the waiting list

for enrolment. This ensured that respondents had access to trained community sociotherapists, if

necessary. To enable research uptake for improving interventions for the intergenerational impact of

the genocide and related events, findings have been shared with stakeholders in the Netherlands and

with CBSP staff and its implementing partners in Rwanda. Preparations are made for further

dissemination of results in Rwanda.

Findings Our first aim was to understand how legacies of the 1994 genocide, its aftermath and related

experiences may affect the next generation of Rwandans through family dynamics. Based on an

analysis of all interviews with mothers and children, we identified several pathways of

intergenerational transmission of legacies of the genocide within families, which can be categorized as

either direct or as indirect (see Figure 1).

The direct pathways of intergenerational transmission concern the ways in which the genocide (i.e.

acts of violence) and its aftermath are reflected upon, reconstructed and explicitly communicated, or

not, to the second generation. Thus, how mothers talk about or silence past events in interactions with

their children are examples of pathways of direct intergenerational transmission.

The indirect pathways of intergenerational transmission are the ways in which the genocide (i.e.

violent acts), its aftermath and related events, affect the second generation’s socio-ecological

environment, and through that, the child. Examples include the effects on (i) family structures (e.g.

missing family members due to death or imprisonment); (ii) family functioning and parenting (e.g. suffering

of parents makes them less sensitive to the needs of their children); (iii) family socio-economic situation

and status (e.g. poverty, for example as a result of looted property or of paying reparations); or (iv)

community relationships (e.g. processes of stigmatization and shame or feelings of jealousy and inequality

or mistrust within communities).

Figure 1. Pathways of transmission

Direct pathways of intergenerational transmission

We identified a large variety of ways in which mothers communicate with their children about the

genocide, in terms of how and what is being communicated. The patterns of communication consisted

of either explicit, verbal communication or a lack of communication between parents and their

children, in the literature often referred to as ‘silence/ing’ (see for example Weingarten, 2004). An

example of explicit, verbal communication is shown in the narrative of a young man (aged 18) who

describes what his mother shared about her experiences during the genocide:

It means that during that period [..] we used to sit down, and she would tell us stories [about

the past]; in fact, when you often talk to your parents, they tell you a lot of things. So she would

tell us those who killed her parents; she would tell us their living conditions before, in those

hard moments.

Household #19, son, aged 18, mother is genocide survivor and ex-participant CBS

Motivations for verbalizing or silencing the experiences of the past varied. Most commonly, mothers

expressed hesitance to share the stories about the genocide and related events with their children.

They appeared concerned about the effects these stories may have in keeping the past alive, wanted

to reassure their children by not showing their struggles, or felt that it served no purpose to recount

these past stories. Their narratives included remarks such as ‘letting go of the past’, ‘bygone is bygone’,

‘it is history’ or ‘I have transcended it’. Some mothers felt that children would not understand and the

need to move on, albeit out of necessity:

I can’t see any major effects because what some people don’t understand, during the genocide

for instance, they were not there. I mean these young ones. But they have reconciled

themselves to their father’s death, we all live with it. We share the responsibilities that he

should be fulfilling and no one gets overtired. Besides, there are things against which you

cannot do anything. That’s the reason why we have to accept it.

Household #13, mother, aged 59, genocide survivor, widow, ex-participant CBS

Other mothers worried that their children, should they hear the stories, would come to hate others or

seek revenge.

Interviewer: [..], do you think that current or past conflicts are likely to affect future generations

from the families that experienced them?

Respondent: This must happen; for example, when a child asks you: what happened to your

family? Who killed them? Right? In the future, they will say: it is these ones who killed our

grandfathers, our aunts, our cousins. They will say: long ago Hutus killed Tutsis, they were in

power of such and such …; let us also kill them. Our grandfathers also were in power of such

and such... On one side, there will be children who will not know the families of their parents.

You see, some children's fathers are in prison, right? They also say: I wish someone could show

me who had my parents jailed. Right? They would say: we would also kill them.

Household #10, mother, aged 40, genocide survivor, mixed marriage, ex-participant CBS

The annual commemoration period and the presence of ‘genocide memorials’ in all parts of the

country (NIOD; Links, 2014 “Preserving History in Rwanda”) show that remembering the genocide is

engrained in everyday life in Rwandan society. For mothers and children, issues regarding

communication or silence about the genocide appeared to become most explicit during the genocide

commemoration period, which takes place each year in the month of April. This national mourning

period concerns 100 days of official commemoration and is traditionally launched every year in a

ceremony initiated by Rwanda’s current president. In this period, otherwise largely private suffering

becomes part of the public domain. Still, not all suffering emanating from the genocide, its aftermath

and related events are communicated openly. For instance, our interviews show that feelings like

mistrust or hatred against people who killed or who are responsible for imprisonment of others are

not often shared or discussed publicly because they may be considered part of ‘genocide ideology’ or

‘divisionism’, which is forbidden and criminalized by Rwandan law (Genocide Ideology and Divisionism

Laws; Human Rights Watch).

Indirect pathways of intergenerational transmission In Rwanda one cannot go past the fact that in many families, children grow up in single-parent

households, face difficult economic circumstances and have limited access to institutional support,

education and (mental) health care (see also: Rieder & Elbert, 2013). These circumstances may be

related to the genocide and related events, meaning that transmitted legacies of the genocide and its

aftermath may manifest themselves through the adverse conditions in which the child grows up. We

identified a number of such indirect pathways of intergenerational transmission, including poverty;

disturbed family structures such as missing or unavailable family members; and compromised family

functioning, which sometimes became manifest in marital conflict or violence, or inadequate

caregiving. Of course, each of these pathways are likely to be interrelated: due to the absence or

unavailability of family members, specific family tasks are no longer fulfilled, or parents may have

limited possibilities to provide basic needs to their children, which subsequently means that they are

less available because they are occupied with procuring a livelihood. Moreover, many parents suffer

from physical or mental illness. In this section, we describe poverty as one of these indirect pathways

of transmission. Throughout our interviews with mothers and children, in all provinces, poverty was

mentioned as a strong concern and at least partly related to the genocide and related events.

In most interviewed families, both mothers and adolescent children expressed fears about economic

‘falling’ and the wish to ‘improve conditions’. Many families had experienced economic downfall after

the genocide. Some families had lost land and cattle through looting during the genocide, some

mentioned conflicts over land ownership as people returned to Rwanda after years of exile, and others

were confronted with post-genocide transitional justice mechanisms such as (substantial) payments

of reparations, which – as they are a family responsibility – drained family economic resources, and

could lead to feeling doubly victimized:

I was harmed by the death of relatives and I was harmed by the effect of paying damages to

the survivors who accused my husband to take materials during genocide (gusahura) during

Gacaca period.

Household #27, mother, aged 47, widow, paid reparations, ex-participant CBS

More indirectly, families had lost family members – often men and other male relatives – who could

have participated in the economy of the household. In these households, mothers had become

primarily responsible for the household economy, often with little resource for help in the extended

family. As such, being a mother was by many experienced as a heavy burden. Mothers also expressed

worries about not being able to help their children prepare for independent house holding. Some

mothers expressed feelings of frustration, anger and injustice for the events that had caused the poor

living conditions and limited opportunities to improve their household conditions:

The events I experienced resulted in my being overwhelmed by too much work in the household

due to poverty following the genocide. Facing problems means not to be idle or not to be

discouraged and stop working. I work although there are failures; I'm not discouraged by the

failures. I work hard in the field although the moles eat the crops, but I don’t give up. I keep

facing the problems so that I can lift myself out of poverty. I cannot stop breeding animals

fearing that they may be stolen. I try to lift myself out of poverty.

Household #41, mother, aged 52, genocide survivor, widow

For children, the consequences of the economic hardship and downfall manifested themselves in the

first place in the lack of fulfillment of basic needs. For instance, several children were prevented from

going to school as mothers could not pay for uniforms or other school material:

It's true, compensation took place, of course I paid with difficult[y], but it is painful to me

because I paid compensation for things that I never saw and which I don't know what they look

like; I feel that this is also a burden to me, but because there was no option, I accepted it. I tell

myself: that is what has happened and I feel that I'm not the only one who experienced this;

but each person knows his [own] case. But I say: the money I paid could have enabled a child

to go to school, but it happened like that. I accept it because there is no option. Yes.

Household #12, mother, aged 40, prisoner’s wife, paid reparations, non-participant CBS

Yet, we saw with many children that they felt deeply responsible for the household conditions and

tried to step in where caregivers were failing. Although it is quite common in many African societies

for children to participate in the running of the household (e.g. Levine et al., 1994; 2008), among the

sampled households, burdens on the young ones appeared heavy. Children did not always know about

the cause of the economic difficulties in their families, or had not (completely) understood:

Child: Because they [i.e. parents] had cut trees, and were requested to refund them. That is all

I know about the case [i.e. obligation to pay reparations].

Interviewer: Was your mother the only one to suffer from that problem?

Child: Yeah, she was the most to suffer because she did not cut the trees herself.

Interviewer: Yes! Oh… Does it have consequences on the relationship with her?

Child: Of course, because she has paid money, the whole household has suffered.

Household #6, daughter, aged 20, mother is genocide survivor and ex-participant CBS

Pathways of intergenerational transmission and CBSP After identifying how legacies of the genocide are transmitted across the generations, the second aim

of the research project was to identify whether and how CBSP can play a role in addressing these

pathways of intergenerational transmission.

With regards to direct pathways of intergenerational transmission, some respondents mentioned

that the CBSP has stimulated them to share personal stories about their own experiences during the

genocide, also with their children. For instance, this respondent describes how – after joining a

sociotherapy group – she finally dared to take her children to a memorial site, which stimulated open

discussion with her children about past experiences of violence:

But now, I feel such behavior [referring to her emotional absence and feelings of anger and

frustration during the commemoration period especially] is weakening away, because of the

community sociotherapy program I have joined. This year particularly, I dared taking my

children to the memorial site. When I uttered my testimony on the dark moments with

genocide, the children have come to realize that my behavior is seriously hindered by the

genocide and they encourage me. At the moment, such an event no longer threatens me to the

extent of disturbing my children.

Household #23, mother, aged 47, genocide survivor, mixed-marriage, ex-participant CBS

With regards to indirect pathways of intergeneration transmission, CBSP addresses issues related to

(mental) health of caregivers, family functioning in terms of marital relationships or relationships with

children and issues related to stigma in the community, albeit not explicitly as a pathway of

intergenerational transmission. Mothers we spoke to mentioned their sociotherapy group’s focus on

‘healing’, its group-based promotion of forgiveness and the importance of ‘moving on’. They noted

that the intervention had helped them living with the suffering they had experienced and feeling

human again. Some felt that they could ‘relativize’ and in a way ‘normalize’ their suffering because

they noticed that other people may be worse off than they themselves are. Other mothers reported

that sociotherapy helped them stop avoiding places or people that remind them of events that

happened during the genocide, or to help coming out of isolation from the community.

They said: “We can now start talking about this issue, then after fifteen days, we shall start

some healing program with you.” From the discussion we had that day, I felt satisfied. I was

taught to visit the persons we were having problems with: “Please, feel free with them. You

should no longer be on bad terms each other, greet them as you pass. Talk to them.” That day

we had a good discussion.

Household #28, mother, aged 45, widow, ex-participant CBS

Sociotherapy appears, however, not to be directed at indirect pathways of intergenerational

transmission such as poverty and compromised family structures due to the loss of family members.

At the same time, we came across various examples in the interviews and our observations in the field

that suggest that sociotherapy may bring benefits in this respect. By bringing people together and

having them share their past and present experiences, this (indirectly) stimulates group-based socio-

economic initiatives. In terms of indirect pathways of intergenerational transmission, this can be said

to – to some extent – address the loss of members in the family structure, but especially address

poverty, the fear for economic downfall and the need or wish to improve family and individual living

conditions. The woman whom we quoted above, indeed, continues her story as follows:

After the discussion, we were told: ‘We are going to start collecting some contribution. After

one year, we shall break the box and see the amount of money inside, and each of us will be

able to buy something from the contributions. So, you can give your ideas, on the contribution.’

I said: ‘My idea is that I don’t have enough means to pay for my children’s school fees; one is

going to the secondary school; another has just completed senior three.’ Then he [the

sociotherapist] told us, because we were trained by [sociotherapists]: ‘Our contribution for you

will be to collect some money in a box, and at the end of the year, you will have some money

to buy pens for your children. That will also be the same for the rest of the group.’ […] To me,

that is the importance of the sociotherapy program up to now.

Household #28, mother, aged 45, widow, ex-participant CBS

Similarly, sociotherapy, due to its community based character, enabled socioeconomic initiatives

directed at the neighborhood:

As I told you, my husband is a member of the community based sociotherapy group and that

his fellow members lend us a hand during the farming season, which we appreciate a lot. For

this reason, this support can’t [negatively] affect our relationship with others in this

neighborhood. Instead, it is a good opportunity for us to discuss about how we can develop our

neighborhood. The most important support is to get constructive ideas which lead to the

development of the neighborhood.

Household #7, mother, aged 51, genocide survivor, husband is ex-participant CBS

Concluding Remarks

In Rwanda, the genocide and its legacies are still omnipresent. The tragic past very much shapes the

present and via next generations, may also affect the future.

In this research we took a qualitative approach to explore the intergenerational legacies of the 1994

genocide in Rwanda. Our first aim was to investigate how the genocide, its aftermath and related

events are transmitted within families to future generations. We focused specifically on relationships

and interactions between mothers and their children. Our second aim was to explore how

sociotherapy, as introduced in the Rwandan society by CBSP, may intervene in processes of

intergenerational transmission in Rwanda. We interviewed mothers who completed sociotherapy

sessions, and mothers who were still on the waiting list to participate. This enabled us to say something

about the potential effects of participation in a sociotherapy group on intergenerational pathways of

transmission.

Our findings revealed that legacies of the 1994 genocide, its aftermath and related events are

transmitted to the second generation within families through direct and indirect pathways, which are

interrelated and interact in multiple ways. The direct pathways of intergenerational transmission

concern the ways in which the genocide and related events are reflected upon, reconstructed and

explicitly communicated, or not, to the second generation. The indirect pathways of intergenerational

transmission are the ways in which the genocide affects the second generation’s socio-ecological

environment, and through that, the child. In this policy paper, we specifically focused on

communication (or a lack thereof) as the direct pathway of intergenerational transmission, and poverty

as an example of the indirect pathway.

Direct pathways involve the communication with or towards children about negative events of the

past. A lack of communication with children or the ‘silencing’ of past events (Weingarten, 2014) was

also observed. Silencing may be a deliberately chosen strategy, for example for mothers not to show

their struggle. Silence as a way to ‘let go of the past’ was also described as a way to be able to live

peacefully together and to focus on the future. CBSP facilitates direct, verbal communication about

difficulties with regard to daily life struggles, which may be related to the genocide (e.g. living together

with perpetrators). Some of our interviewees noted that directly confronting the past and sharing their

traumatic experiences enabled them to ‘relativize’, or normalize, their suffering. They saw that other

people also suffer and may even be worse off. With regards to the intergenerational family bonds and

relationships, open communication about the genocide and its legacies can lead to children’s increased

understanding of their present struggles. At the same time, we know from the literature that it can

also generate frustration, open old wounds or lead to traumatization. Our data is inconclusive with

regards to the effects of sociotherapy on both whether and how the past is communicated towards

the children and on what the effects are of the direct open communication, or silence, for the second

generation.

With regards to the indirect pathways of intergenerational transmission, in this policy paper we

focused on poverty as the most salient example of an indirect intergenerational pathway. Economic

downfall as an (in)direct result of the genocide, its aftermath and related events was frequently

referred to by both mothers and children as hampering them in their daily lives and obstructing

opportunities for the future. For children, the consequences of the economic hardship and downfall

manifested themselves in the first place in the lack of fulfillment of basic needs, their inability to attend

school and therewith secure their future. They reported feeling obliged to alleviate family poverty by

contributing to household activities and generating sources of income. Sociotherapy appears not to be

directed at indirect pathways of intergenerational transmission such as poverty. It seems, however,

that by bringing people together, enabling them to share their experiences and opening up to each

other, sociotherapy (secondarily) stimulates group-based cooperation and socio-economic initiatives

among its participants. This in turn enables people to potentially improve their economic conditions

and eventually alleviate poverty and economic hardships.

Policy recommendations Our research shows that legacies of the genocide are transmitted to the second generation in complex

ways. Negative consequences often manifest themselves in the socio-ecological environment of the

child. To intervene in the intergenerational transmission processes, therefore, CBSP may – in their

further implementation of sociotherapy in Rwanda – want to find ways to address some of these

pathways in the socio-ecological environment more explicitly. The community and group based format

may be especially useful. Indeed, albeit not in a direct or targeted way, CBSP already does touch upon

several pathways of transmission.

Sociotherapy, as introduced in Rwanda by CBSP, is designed to improve the well-being and functioning

of, in this research, the first generation or parents, as well as stimulate interpersonal reconciliation

and social cohesion. In this way, CBSP may (inadvertently) influence indirect pathways of

intergenerational transmission, namely communication, by ultimately affecting the stories parents will

tell their children about the past, and (mental) health of parents, which may affect the parenting and

other aspects that influence the child’s socio-ecological environment. To target intergenerational

legacies of the genocide, its aftermath and related events more directly, in their further

implementation of sociotherapy, CBSP might want to consider focusing explicitly on these and other

pathways of intergenerational transmission, by:

Encouraging the group to address parenting, family relations and family interactions explicitly,

in order to help each other to secure a safe environment for their children to grow up in;

Stimulating and supporting the group to develop economic cooperation among its participants

and within the community in order to reduce poverty, and facilitate potential collaboration

with partners (see below);

Encouraging the group to fulfill the roles of absent family members by taking care of each other,

or each other’s children, thereby fulfilling roles generally ascribed to family members – and thus

extending their relevance to the children – this may aid specifically in order to prevent negative

consequences for next generations.

To complement their own work and help further exploit beneficial ‘side-effects’ – such as the effects

on poverty and on supporting the formation of broader social networks for parents – CBSP may want

also to explore partnerships with other organizations who can aid in specializing in these other aspects.

Challenges encountered by the second generation in Rwanda, may also potentially affect subsequent

generations. We therefore think that CBSP’s recent growing attention for intergenerational processes

(for example by forming sociotherapy groups with second generation children) is extremely important

and well chosen.

To conclude, by purposefully addressing intergenerational transmission within their existing program

and its community based structure, CBSP may be even better equipped to improve conditions for

future generations of Rwandans.

Literature

Berckmoes, L.H., & Reis, R. (2016) Intergenerational transmission of violence and resilience in Burundi:

A qualitative study on why some children do well despite adversity. Amsterdam: University of

Amsterdam and UNICEF.

Betancourt T.S., & Williams, T. (2008). Building an evidence base on mental health interventions for

children affected by armed conflict. Intervention, 6(1): 39-56.

doi:10.1097/WTF.0b013e3282f761ff.

Betancourt, T. S., McBain, R. K., Newnham, E. A., & Brennan, R. T. (2015). The intergenerational impact

of war: longitudinal relationships between caregiver and child mental health in postconflict Sierra

Leone. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(10), 1101-1107.

Buckley-Zistel, S. (2006). Remembering to forget: Chosen amnesia as a strategy for local coexistence

in post-genocide Rwanda. Africa, 76(2), 131-150.

Clark, P. & Kaufman Z.D. (Eds.) (2008). After Genocide, Transitional Justice, Post-Conflict Reconstruction

and Reconciliation in Rwanda and Beyond. Hurts Publishers: United Kingdom.

Dekker, C. (2016). Terugvinden van waardigheid: Community-based sociotherapy in Rwanda, Oost

Congo en Liberia. Dissertation, Amsterdam: VU University Press.

Divisionism Law (2001). Law No. 47/2001 of 2001 on Prevention, Suppression and Punishment of the

Crime of Discrimination and Sectarianism. Available at:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ac5c4302.html

Genocide Ideology Law (2008). Law No. 18/2008 of 2008 Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide Ideology. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4acc9a4e2.html

Gewirtz, A., Forgatch, M., & Wieling, E. (2008). Parenting practices as potential mechanisms for child

adjustment following mass trauma. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34(2), 177-192.

Human Rights Watch (2008) Law and Reality. Progress in Judicial Reform in Rwanda. Available at:

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/rwanda0708/rwanda0708webwcover.pdf

Levine, R.A., Levine, S., Dixon, S., Richman, A., Keefer, C.H., & Leiderman, P.H. (1994). Child care and

culture: Lessons from Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levine, R.A., & New, R.S. (Eds.). (2008). Anthropology and Child Development: A Cross-Cultural Reader.

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Links, P. (2014). Preserving history in Rwanda. Available at: http://www.niod.nl/en/lecture-petra-links-

preserving-history-rwanda

Richters, A., & Sarabwe, E. (2014). Everyday partner violence in Rwanda: the contribution of

community-based sociotherapy to peaceful family life: original contribution. African Safety

Promotion 12(1), 18-34.

Rieder, H., & Elbert, T. (2013). Rwanda–lasting imprints of a genocide: trauma, mental health and

psychosocial conditions in survivors, former prisoners and their children. Conflict and Health, 7(1),

6.

Roth, M., Neuner, F., & Elbert, T. (2014). Transgenerational consequences of PTSD: risk factors for the

mental health of children whose mothers have been exposed to the Rwandan genocide.

International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 8(1), 1-12.

Rwanda. Ministry for Local Government (2002). The counting of the Genocide victims: final report.

Kigali. Republic of Rwanda.

Rutayisire, T. & Richters, A. (2014). Everyday suffering outside prison walls: A legacy of community

justice in post-genocide Rwanda. Social Science & Medicine 120, 413-420.

Sarabwe, E., Richters, A. & Vysma, M. (2017). Marital conflict in the aftermath of genocide in Rwanda An explorative study in the context of community-based sociotherapy. Intervention: International

Journal of Mental Health, Psychosocial Work and Counselling in Areas of Armed Conflict. Accepted for publication.

Schindler, K. (2010). Who Does What in a Household after Genocide? Evidence from Rwanda. DIW

Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research. Discussion Paper No. 1072.

Tertsakina, C. (2004). Le Chateau. The lives of prisoners in Rwanda. UK: Arves Books.

Umubyeyi, A. Mogren, I., Ntaganira, J. & Krantz, G. (2014). Women are considerably more exposed to

intimate partner violence than men in Rwanda: results from a population-based, cross-sectional

study. BMC Women's Health, 14, 99-110.

Weingarten, K. (2004). Witnessing the effects of political violence in families: Mechanisms of

intergenerational transmission and clinical interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,

30(1), 45-59.